Yes I did as a matter of fact, however the author is an ex Police Officer from Sydney New South Wales Australia.
Thanks for educating me on the rising crime in Australia. I am sorry that it has become so dangerous over there. Unfortunately, that article does not justify the comment that "honest, hard-working Muslims are in the minority". Your words, not mine. The article also does not compare crimes committed by Muslims to crimes committed by non-Muslims. Now that would be an interesting study, wouldn't you say?
Each group wants the rest of us to believe that they are the ones to follow for peace and happiness, yet they have not given us one example of where they have been able to peacefully co exsist with anyone of a different interpertation of their meta physical belief, and not only with those of a different faith but also with those of a different branch of the same faith.
OK, here's one. AA.
The members may call their "higher power" by any name they choose, and by any interpretation or understanding.
There are members of ALL faiths, and no faith, all coming together for the same fellowship and unity.
God, Allah, the Great Spirit, Mother Nature, all names for the same him/her/it. ( the name seems to be dependent on the local majority. Evident that "God" doesn't really care what you call him/her/it as long as you do )
There is a suggestion that although AA may not be the only way for one or three, it's the only way for millions, and it works !
Peaceful co-existence, and oneness of purpose, regardless of interpretation or branch thereof.
The best example I know of, where religious tolerance of and by EVERY member WORKS !
Also true of Al-Anon.
Note that I am a member of neither, though I attend occasionally as a source of spiritual inspiration, particularly the discussion meetings work for me.
(snip)
.
He is consistent. The cases you refer to are the government placing religious symbols on public property: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (US Constitution). The mosque in lower Manhattan isn't a US government building, it is a private construction. And you can call it a Winter Break, Xmas Break, Christmas Break, Solstice Break, whatever you want. No one wanted to "ban the 10 commandments in a small down in the south" (sic). You may still follow the 10 commandments or pick and choose which of the 10 to follow, just don't use my tax money to put it on my tax purchased and supported property. Hey, I have a great idea! How about everyone who wants the 10 Commandments displayed put them in their front yard! Everyone is happy, the Xtians, the courts, etc.
Apologies for getting a bit off topic.
I am totally amazed that so many AMERICANS don't know what their own constitution says about keeping church and state separate. It's not exactly rocket science.
The previous poster said: you had better check the consti. the original intent was to keep the state out of the church. not the other way around. this is fact
I won't argue "original intent." However, the result is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Establishment of religionmeans, in its most extreme form,declaring an official state religion. The wording is such that congress must be fully neutral. I'd like to think that the people who drafted it knew what they were doing.
To say that the State was to stay out of religious affairs and not the way around is to ignore the history of religious wars on the European continent which weighed heavily on the minds of theAmericans who worked on the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights that followed.
I won't argue "original intent." However, the result is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Establishment of religion means, in its most extreme form, declaring an official state religion. The wording is such that congress must be fully neutral. I'd like to think that the people who drafted it knew what they were doing.
That's a tad incomplete.
It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In the 60's the liberal supreme court interpreted this to mean "Congress shall make many laws disrespecting established religion, especially Judeo-Christian religions, and prohibiting the fee exercise thereof."
It's pretty obvious the intent, both original and subsequent until recently, was to keep the state out of religion altogether, while at the same time allowing religious freedom in almost any established form, and NEVER to keep religion out of the state. The framers were very religious men, and their beliefs VERY much influenced what they wrote, and why they wrote it the way they did.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, a "separation of church and state" in these United States according to law.
In practice, we very much have a state religion. Secular humanism, and atheism, are quite the State Religion these days.
regardless of freedom of religion, its wrong. they shouldnt build the damn thing. the japanese didnt build a japanese cultural center at pearl harbor after they bombed it did they? no.
No but Americans have made the Japanese rich by buying Honda, Toyota, Sony, Canon, Nintendo, etc., etc., etc. . . .
Whatever you want to call the Supreme Court, it's the law of the land.
It's merely the current interpretation of the law, subject to change by that same court.
So long as the court consists of political appointees, it's somewhat unpredictable what the next court will decide is the correct interpretation.And your quotation marks show that this is a quote ( "Congress shall make many laws disrespecting established religion, especially Judeo-Christian religions, and prohibiting the fee exercise thereof."). Where is the quote taken from? What are the sources?
I'm quoting me. I apologize if my choice of punctuation marks is incorrect.Yes, the constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...." The issue isn't the religious position of the framers of the Constitution and we do not know their "beliefs" as applied to the Constitution.
It kinda is, but I'll give you this one, as it's a bit off-topic.I could just as well say that they knew that their beliefs should not be used as the norm and that the citizens could be free to worship as they see fit, be it Catholic, Presbyterian, Muslim, etc.
And a reasonable man acting reasonably would agree ! ( as do I )So, tell me where/when is a person is told to practice secular humanism or atheism.
Every time a government enforces the taking down of a Christmas nativity display, anywhere, ( but especially off government property ) for just one example.
We're drifting quite a ways off-topic, so I'll desist in this line here.
My bottom line opinion is that reasonable men acting reasonably would not attempt to build a mosque at that location in light of the public outcry against what is being perceived as a direct affront to the American people. Reasonable moslems would voluntarily move it in a spirit and showing of sympathy for the American people, as well as a showing of disagreement with the radical fundamentalist elements within Islam. Although perhaps it *should* not be, it *is* being interpreted as a showing of support of the murder and the murders perpetrating the 911 terrorist attacks. That alone should tell them what they should do, and what they do will be seen as a quite public showing of their position on those terrorists and the attacks on these United States, and our way of life.
Further, it is my opinion that the FEDERAL government is constitutionally prohibited from taking a stand on this issue either way. The individual members of the Federal government, such as the person of the president, are not prohibited from having a personal opinion, and/or stating that opinion, popular or not.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!